Approximately 114 million American adults (57%) engage in artistic activity (play musical instruments; sing; write; draw; paint; dance; act; make films; etc.). Of these, 32 million consider themselves "artists," and 10 million of these make some money from art.

84% of all artists and 95% of paid artists use computers, versus 72% of all adults. 16% of artists have websites, and over half use them to provide free samples.

Only 42% of artists (and only 45% of musicians) are "very" or "somewhat" concerned about the issue of file-sharing on the Internet. So far, the impact of the Internet has not been great; only 6% of online artists report a big impact of the Internet on their ability to protect work, and another 19% reported some effect.

Artists are as confused as everyone else over the proper limits of fair use, the legitimacy of downloading for personal use, the proper scope of copyright, and other thorny issues.

The clash over new technology grows out of a long history of disputes between business and artists about the proper balance between creators, the people who pay for and market creations, and consumers who want access to large catalogs of digital musical files . . . .

As we have explained, "[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause . . . is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare, through the talents of authors and inventors." Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). Accordingly, "copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge. . . . The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science." American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1, 27 (SDNY 1992), affd 60 F.2d 913 (CA2 1994). Rewarding authors for their creative labor and "promoting . . . Progress" are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright "[t]he public good fully coincides . . . with the claims of individuals." The Federalist, No. 43, p. 272 (C. Rossiter ed., 1961). [Brackets, ellipses, and emphasis in Eldred.]

Approximately 114 million American adults (57%) engage in artistic activity (play musical instruments; sing; write; draw; paint; dance; act; make films; etc.). Of these, 32 million consider themselves "artists," and 10 million of these make some money from art.

84% of all artists and 95% of paid artists use computers, versus 72% of all adults. 16% of artists have websites, and over half use them to provide free samples.

Only 42% of artists (and only 45% of musicians) are "very" or "somewhat" concerned about the issue of file-sharing on the Internet. So far, the impact of the Internet has not been great; only 6% of online artists report a big impact of the Internet on their ability to protect work, and another 19% reported some effect.

Artists are as confused as everyone else over the proper limits of fair use, the legitimacy of downloading for personal use, the proper scope of copyright, and other thorny issues.

The clash over new technology grows out of a long history of disputes between business and artists about the proper balance between creators, the people who pay for and market creations, and consumers who want access to large catalogs of digital musical files . . . .

As we have explained, "[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause . . . is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare, through the talents of authors and inventors." Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). Accordingly, "copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge. . . . The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science." American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1, 27 (SDNY 1992), affd 60 F.2d 913 (CA2 1994). Rewarding authors for their creative labor and "promoting . . . Progress" are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright "[t]he public good fully coincides . . . with the claims of individuals." The Federalist, No. 43, p. 272 (C. Rossiter ed., 1961). [Brackets, ellipses, and emphasis in Eldred.]